Little
scholarly research exists which addresses outlaw motorcycle clubs. These
works attempt to explore warring factions of outlaw clubs, provide club
members’ perspectives about media portrayal, expose myths, and elucidate
motorcycle club culture.*1 The literature reveals gaps which leave many
unanswered questions: Where do outlaw motorcycle clubs come from? How
did they start? How or why did they evolve into alleged international
crime organizations? The few histories of outlaw motorcycle organizations
date the origins of such clubs to around 1947 and tend to oversimplify
the issues of why these clubs formed and who actually joined them. Histories
such as these are built on foundations of weak evidence, rendering inconsequential
the origins of the subculture and relegating members of early organizations
to the marginal status of “malcontents on the edge of society, and
other antisocial types who just wanted to raise hell” (Valentine
147). This article extends current research by reaching back nearly half
a century before 1947 to link the dawn of motorcycle organizations with
the present reality of outlaw motorcycle clubs. The overarching goal of
the article is to offer a more comprehensive history, an evolutionary
history that may allow for a better understanding of contemporary motorcycle
subculture.

What follows is a taxonomy of social and historical factors affecting
group formation of motorcycle clubs according to the following temporal
classification:

1. Preformative period: 1901-1944, the genesis of social organization
around motorcycling

2. Formative period: 1945-1957, social and historical events of the
post-World War II era coalesced in the formation of outlaw motorcycle
clubs, and

3. Transformative period: 1958-present.

Underpinning
the primary and secondary historical data cited in this essay are in-depth
interviews with and personal histories of long-time members of outlaw
motorcycle clubs, both one-percent and non-one-percent organizations.
This ethnographic study, conducted by the author, took place primarily
in the southeastern United States (e.g., Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
and West Virginia) from June 2000 through May 2004, but extensive participant
observations took place in Texas, New York, Indiana, Ohio, Arkansas, Utah,
Arizona, and California while attending regional and national motorcycle
club gatherings. *2

Finally,
a point of clarification is in order. For the purposes of this essay the
term outlaw is used to describe motorcycling organizations that
are not affiliated with the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA), and
the name of a specific motorcycling organization (i.e. the Outlaws Motorcycle
Club). It is important to note that for the purposes of this essay the
term outlaw does not, in and of itself, refer to the breaking
of law. However, when used in the context of describing “one-percent”
motorcycle clubs, which are defined in detail below, the term takes on
a more ominous tone. It is not my intention to suggest that the term outlaw
is synonymous with illegal endeavor; rather, I wish to outline important
differences and commonalities between one-percent and outlaw motorcycle
clubs.

Preformative
Period: 1901-1944

Motorcycling,
something of a Darwinian variation in the evolution of bicycling, originates
with the widespread diffusion of motorized transportation in the United
States. The late 1800s and early 1900s saw an international bicycle diffusion
bonanza. These relatively cheap vehicles were marketed for a wide variety
of uses, such as business delivery vehicles and leisurely activities,
as well as being a prime answer to inner-city mass transportation problems.
While bicycle companies had been experimenting with motorized versions
of their cycles since at least as early as 1894, the first large-scale
introduction of what was to become the motorcycle was introduced to the
American public via bicycle racing after the turn of the twentieth century
(Sucher). In fact, well into the 1920s bicycle racing was America’s
most popular and well-attended sport, with races drawing more spectators
than any other professional sport including baseball (Nye). In Europe,
velodromes housed indoor wooden board tracks where world championships
were held as early as 1893 and the first Tour de France was run in 1903
(Perry). American bicycle racing was championed by bike manufacturers
such as George Hendee, a former bicycle-racing champion, who staged events
throughout New England and other areas (Sucher).

In
the early 1900s bicycle design and manufacture, as well as athletes’
physical abilities, had reached a point where aerodynamics were a major
factor in bicycle racing (Page). So it was that tandem (two-person) bicycles
were fitted with French DeDion-Buton single-cylinder, air-cooled internal
combustion engines in order to propel the cycles at regulated speeds just
ahead of the racers. These pacers, as they were called, provided the means
by which racers were able to draft due to the motorbike splitting the
wind and creating a small vacuum just behind the pace vehicle (Nye, Sucher).
The pacers were rather complicated to operate and required two people
to run: the front rider was a pilot who steered the vehicle and the rear
rider was an engineer who constantly adjusted the flow of fuel to the
primitive carburetor in order to maintain a constant speed. The engines
used in powering the pacers were inherently unreliable and often broke
down during races, largely due to the inadequate fuel delivery of the
French carburetors. This, of course, was a serious cause for concern as
it was frustrating for both paying spectators and for the athletes whose
performance was hindered, as well as embarrassing for race promoters such
as Hendee. An answer to the frustrating reliability problems came from
a small-time machinist and self-taught bicycle designer/fabricator named
Oscar Hedstrom. Hedstrom began modifying single-cylinder engines and carburetors
used in pacers and soon earned a reputation for producing reliable cycles.
Hendee partnered with Hedstrom and the two staged successful, relatively
uninterrupted bicycle races throughout the New England area.

The Hendee/Hedstrom relationship soon evolved into a professional association
that culminated in the production of what can be seen as America’s
first reliable, mass-produced motorcycles. Thus, the Preformative period
of outlaw motorcycle clubs begins in 1901 when Hendee and Hedstrom founded
the Indian Motocycle (sic) Company and began selling motorized bicycles
to the general public. (The Harley-Davidson Motor Company was formed two
years later.) Trailing just behind the rear wheel of American motorcycle
diffusion was the formation of motorcycling associations and clubs. One
of the earliest known clubs was the New York Motorcycle Club that, in
partnership with the Alpha Motorcycle Club of Brooklyn, formed the Federation
of American Motorcyclists (FAM) in 1903 (AMA). FAM focused on improving
the driving conditions under which motorcyclists operated their machines.
In fact, Article I, section 2 of the FAM constitution read:

[The Federation’s] objects shall be to encourage the use of
motorcycles and to promote the general interests of motorcycling;
to ascertain, defend and protect the rights of motorcyclists; to facilitate
touring; to assist in the good roads movement; and to advise and assist
in the regulation of motorcycle racing and other competition in which
motorcycles engage. (AMA)

Other motorcycle companies such as Excelsior, Henderson, Ace, and Pope
enjoyed great sales success in the American motorcycle market from the
early 1900s through the late 1920s.

Motorcycles, originally little more than motorized bicycles, were initially
relatively affordable vehicles for most Americans, especially when compared
with the astronomical costs of pre-Ford automobiles. Vast improvements
in engine and carburetor design, along with the development of multi-speed
transmissions, lighting systems, mechanical drum/leading-link braking
systems, frame, and suspension designs very quickly ushered in an era
that saw motorcycles as much more sophisticated and better-performing
machines that were beginning to carry a hefty price tag as well. Just
over two decades into the twentieth century, motorcycles could no longer
be considered particularly affordable modes of transportation for the
average American consumer. By the mid-1920s the cost of a small Harley
or Indian was around $275, a full size or big-twin model was roughly $375,
and the price of a Model T Ford was only $545 (Cuff 229). Motorcycle manufacturers
of the time couldn’t know that careening down the backstretch of
the 1920s was a stock market crash, the wreckage of which was to send
manufacturers reeling worldwide. The Great Depression, which drafted effortlessly
behind the crash of 1929, had a devastating effect on American motorcycle
companies (Dregni); only two American marques survived the Great Depression:
The Indian Motocycle Company and The Harley-Davidson Motor Company.

Perhaps the first emergence of an enduring motorcycle club, one that still
exists as of this writing, appeared in 1936. This group was called the
McCook Outlaws, hailing from Cook County, Illinois, which encompasses
the city of Chicago. The McCook Outlaws were later to become the Chicago
Outlaws, now known as the Outlaws Motorcycle Club (Outlaws Motorcycle
Club or Outlaws MC). According to a member of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club
for more than twenty five years who currently resides in northern Florida,
older members of his organization related to him that they congregated
for the purposes of long distance touring—which was quite an adventure
aboard a foot-operated clutch and hand-shifted motorcycle traveling largely
on unpaved dirt roads—and racing, which included hill-climbing,
flat quarter-mile dirt tracks, and oval wooden board tracks. A secondary
but enduring biker pastime was the massive consumption of alcohol and
general good-natured debauchery. Organizational symbols of the McCook
Outlaws were stenciled on the back of mechanics overalls, which consisted
simply of the club’s name; leather vests and jackets, as well as
club-specific logos and symbols were yet to make their debut. It is interesting
to note that according to the Outlaws Motorcycle Club History webpage,
the club’s organizational logo (i.e. “Charlie,” a skull
centered over two crossed pistons and connecting rods, similar to a Jolly
Roger pirate’s flag) was heavily influenced by the attire worn by
Marlon Brando’s character “Johnny” in the 1954 film
The Wild One. *3

An
all-female motorcycle club called The Motormaids has maintained an American
Motorcyclist Association club charter for more than 60 years (the AMA
granted their charter in 1940). While the Outlaws Motorcycle Club may
arguably lay claim to a slightly longer lineage, they have experienced
at least two organizational identity permutations during their tenure.
The Motormaids, however, has maintained a singular identity and overall
governing structure since their inception and thus may well be the oldest
established motorcycle club in the world, older even than the world famous
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, which formed in 1947, who also maintain
their original organizational identity (Barger, Zimmerman and Zimmerman).

The
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which kick-started American involvement
in World War II and the resultant compulsory military service of young
American men, clamped the brakes down hard on the acceleration of motorcycle
club diffusion across the country. However, the sound of Japanese bombs
exploding in Pearl Harbor was to be anything but the death knell of motorcycle
clubs.

Formative
Period: 1945-1947

The
end of World War II saw young men returning from combat in droves. Many
found the transition back to a peaceful civilian life a more monotonous
chore than they could handle. Some combat vets were trained in riding
motorcycles, specifically Harleys and Indians, while serving overseas.
Other servicemen who weren’t officially trained in the operation
of military motorcycles would simply commandeer motorcycles and ride them
about in order to facilitate much needed relief from the stress of armed
conflict. Some who didn’t have experience with motorcycles during
the war did manage to work their way up to master-level partiers (Ciacchi,
Reynolds). Be they Army Air Corps flight crews, Seamen, Infantrymen, Airborne
or Marines, the one constant thread that was sewn throughout their uniforms
was the ubiquitous post-mission celebration. Many WWII veterans formed
strong bonds with one another, relationships that transcended wartime,
which likely began during basic training where men were forced into seemingly
impossible and highly stressful situations in order to expedite the formation
of an exceptionally high degree of interdependence. During actual combat,
men became brothers-in-arms through the horrific experiences of witnessing
members of their unit being killed and wounded, they themselves being
wounded, killing enemy soldiers, and other atrocities of war (Ciacchi;
Barger, et al; Reynolds).

Upon
their successful return from combat missions, marines, airmen, soldiers
and sailors retired to the nearest drinking establishment in an attempt
to drown the memories of battle with booze, to heal the scars of armed
conflict with laughter, and to try and feel human again, if only for a
short while. These men became brothers born of warfare, atrocity, and
death, a kinship that runs deeper than blood relations. It is also important
to consider the ages of these men: the average age of WWII servicemen
was only 26 (Kolb). Many returning combat vets reported feelings of restlessness
and a general malaise (Kolb); their pre-war personalities had been forever
changed. These men were likely experiencing varying degrees of Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), a psychological diagnosis that wasn’t officially
recognized until 1980 (APA). The National Center for Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (NCPTSD) defines the disorder as:

a
psychiatric disorder that can occur following the experience or witnessing
of life-threatening events such as military combat, natural disasters,
terrorist incidents, serious accidents, or violent personal assaults
like rape. People who suffer from PTSD often relive the experience
through nightmares and flashbacks, have difficulty sleeping, and feel
detached or estranged, and these symptoms can be severe enough and
last long enough to significantly impair the person's daily life.

Researchers
have found that for some combat veterans, relief from the effects of PTSD
can be found by engaging in interpersonal and leisure activities such
as those involved with motorcycling (Hill& Langholtz, Orford, Kanas,
Ouimette, Humphreys, Moos, Finney, Cronkite, & Federman). Thus, it
seems logical that the horrors of war and the hell of combat may have
melted down the pre-war personalities of these men only to recast them
forever in a new form, a form that didn’t fit well with the post-World
War II American culture.

It
should come as no surprise that when these men returned stateside and
resumed their jobs punching time clocks, dressing in suits, reporting
to managers, swinging hammers, or repairing automobiles, that very soon
they started searching for “leisure” activities that could
get their blood pumping once again. Veterans, searching for relief from
the residual effects of their wartime experiences, started seeking out
one another just to be around kindred spirits and perhaps relive some
of the better, wilder social aspects of their times during the war. Soon
enough American motorcycles became part of the equation, largely due to
the high level of performance and excitement the cycles offered a rider,
as well as for the relatively antisocial characteristic of loud exhaust
pipes and the large, imposing size of the bikes. Add to this a post-war
economic boon and a July 4th, 1947 Hollister, California incident as reported
by Life magazine, and it seems that all the ingredients necessary,
which were missing during the previous era, are now present and sufficient
for a specific type of motorcycling organization to emerge.

As
stated above, only members of AMA chartered motorcycle clubs were permitted
to race, and professional racing with its world-class competition was
a prime factor in the formation and diffusion of motorcycle clubs. The
AMA imposed strict rules on its members in the interests of racing safety
as well as for public image, specifically to promote an image of a family-friendly
and wholesome sport.

An
organizational rift within the AMA apparently occurred in reaction to
media coverage of a minor incident in Hollister, California, on July 4th,
1947 (Hollister, Reynolds, Thompson). This particular Fourth of July weekend
found members of various motorcycle clubs, including the Pissed Off Bastards
of Bloomington (POBOB) *4 and the Boozefighters Motorcycle Clubs, in attendance
at an annual Gypsy Tour race held outside Hollister. Gypsy Tours were
AMA-sanctioned racing events staged at various locations across America
and, like modern-day NASCAR events, were considered to be the premier
motorcycle racing events of the time (AMA). The exuberance of the racing
event, fueled by a number of drunken non-motorcycle club members, spilled
over into the town of Hollister, where the bikers, motorcycle club members
as well as nonmembers, indulged in racing their bikes through the streets
of the small town and consuming massive amounts of beer, much to the local
merchants’ delight (Hollister). The ruckus did result in some minor
storefront damage and at least one misdemeanor arrest for public indecency,
but did not begin to approach the siege that Life magazine portrayed.

Due
largely to the paucity of surviving individuals able to serve as primary
historical sources, a “true” account of what actually happened
in Hollister that Fourth of July weekend has yet to be told, and most
likely will never be. Indeed, most accounts of this infamous weekend (e.g.,
Valentine, Watson, Thompson) fail to include important contextual information
such as the fact that Hollister had previously hosted a Gypsy Tour in
1936, and that Bolado Racetrack, located just outside town, regularly
held hill climbing and other motorcycle races (Hollister, Reynolds 46).
Indeed, historical accounts of Hollister that fail to include the town’s
long time relationship with racing and bikers read as though Hollister
was the site of a terrible and unsuspected onslaught.*5 As Tom Reynolds
aptly notes, the allure of the myth is far more tantalizing than any facts
waiting to be culled from primary sources (46). In fact, the town of Hollister
went to great expense to host a 1997 50th Anniversary biker rally in order
to commemorate the event.

The
myth of July Fourth, 1947 Hollister can be attributed to a single person.
According to eye-witnesses, Barney Peterson, a photographer for the San
Francisco Chronicle staged the now-infamous photograph of a drunken
biker leaning precariously atop a Harley-Davidson motorcycle surrounded
with broken beer bottles, holding a beer in each hand with club insignia
prominently displayed for the camera’s (and thus, America’s)
eye (Reynolds 50, Ciacchi). The San Francisco Chronicle also
ladled up a rather generous helping of literary license when reporting
the affair. While the Chronicle story includes the facts that
bikers were racing up and down the streets of Hollister, as well as riding
their bikes through restaurants and bars, words such as “terrorism”
and “pandemonium” were used to an exaggerated extent, and
the women accompanying the bikers portrayed as less than wholesome American
young ladies (Reynolds 54). It is important to note here that the Chronicle
article did not include any photos from Hollister. All in all, the
Chronicle article did little to stir up citizens of the region;
this, at a time when local labor strikes were resulting in deaths, simply
wasn’t news. A major American periodical picked up the Hollister
story and Barney Peterson’s staged photograph of the drunken biker
appeared in the July 21, 1947 edition of Life magazine under
the title “Cyclist’s Holiday: He and Friends Terrorize Town.”
Further, the Life article claimed that four thousand members
of a motorcycle club were responsible for the melee, an immoderate exaggeration.
According to most estimates there is yet to exist a motorcycle club able
to boast anywhere near half this number (Southeast Gang Activities Group,
Detroit).

The
article, a mere 115 words placed beneath the gargantuan image of an apparently
drunken motorcyclist teetering atop a bobbed-and-beer-bottle-festooned
Harley-Davison Knucklehead, was published in a recurring section of the
magazine titled “The Week’s Events.” This section of
Life magazine, which highlighted events from around the nation
and the world, relied heavily on visual images rather than text to “tell
the stories,” as each article in the series employs massive graphic
images and precious little explanatory text. The Life story caused
something of a tumult around the country (Yates), and some authors have
asserted that the AMA subsequently released a press statement disclaiming
involvement in the Hollister event, stating that 99% of motorcyclists
are good, decent, law-abiding citizens, and that the AMA’s ranks
of motorcycle clubs were not involved in the debacle (e.g., Reynolds,
Thompson). However, the American Motorcyclist Association has no record
of ever releasing such as statement. Tom Lindsay, the AMA’s Public
Information Director, states “We [the American Motorcyclist Association]
acknowledge that the term ‘one-percenter’ has long been (and
likely will continue to be) attributed to the American Motorcyclist Association,
but we've been unable to attribute its original use to an AMA official
or published statement—so it's apocryphal.”

The
Life article did elicit written responses from at least three
individuals, one of whom was Paul Brokaw, a prominent editor of a leading
cycling periodical, Motorcyclist. Brokaw chastised Life for
its less than authentic portrayal of the Hollister event. It seems prudent
to provide Brokaw’s entire August 11, 1947 letter to the editors
of Life:

Sirs:
Words are difficult to express my shock in discovering that motorcyclist
picture [see Life July 21, 1947: 31]. It was very obviously
arranged and posed by an enterprising and unscrupulous photographer.

We
regretfully acknowledge that there was disorder in Hollister –
not the acts of 4,000 motorcyclists, but rather of a small percentage
of that number, aided by a much larger group of non-motorcycling hell-raisers
and mercenary-minded barkeepers. We in no manner defend the culprits
– in fact drastic action is under way to avoid recurrences of
such antics.

You
have, however, in presentation of this obnoxious picture, seared a
pitiful brand on the character of tens of thousands of innocent, clean-cut,
respectable, law-abiding young men and women who are the true representatives
of an admirable sport.

Paul
Brokaw
Editor, Motorcyclist
Los Angeles, Calf.

In
the letter above, Brokaw indicates clearly that he and some unnamed others
are addressing what happened in Hollister. It is important to note that
Brokaw does not state who those others may be, let alone does he claim
that he is speaking for the AMA. Interestingly, Brokaw declares that any
wrongdoing at Hollister was not the work of 4,000 motorcyclists, “but
rather a small percentage of that number.” It seems logical, in
the absence of any documented statement released by the AMA, that this
comment may be the origins of the term “one percent.” Further,
another letter published in the same edition of Life, written
by Charles A. Addams, speciously defines half of the Hollister motorcyclist
population as members of the AMA. According to Addams, “The four
thousand [motorcyclists] in attendance were not members of one club but
were probably composed of 50% American Motorcycle Association members
and 50% mere motorcyclists out for a three-day holiday. About 500 [motorcyclists]
made the event the debacle it was.” The third and final letter published
the July 21st, 1947 edition of Life was submitted by Keenan Wynn
of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures and was apparently written in an attempt
to underscore the actuality that the Hollister events were not consistent
with his and other motorcyclists’ experience; the other cyclists
enjoying significant contemporary celebrity (e.g., Clark Gable, Larry
Parks, Randolph Scott, Ward Bond, Andy Devine, and Bob Stack). When combined,
Addams and Brokaw letters may explain why many believe that the AMA released
a statement in response to the Life article. The Addams letter
establishes the possibility of a considerable AMA Hollister presence,
and Brokaw seems to be speaking for a motorcycling organization whose
reputation has been marred by Life’s portrayal. It therefore
seems logical to conclude that these two letters to the editor represent
the origin of the “AMA Hollister condemnation” myth. Brokaw’s
comments in his letter to the editor were not offered explicitly on behalf
of the AMA, but over time people may have interpreted his comments as
such.

While
mainstream motorcyclists and motorcycling organizations were attempting
to distance themselves from the myth of Hollister, clubs such as the Boozefighters
were basking in it. So it was that the birth of outlaw motorcycle clubs
was the result of a siege that never took place and the expatriation from
an organization to which they never belonged, and not much notice was
taken outside the biker subculture (Reynolds).

Transformative
Period: 1948-present

During
the period between 1948 and the early 1960s, motorcycle clubs spread out
from California with new outlaw (i.e. non-AMA affiliated) motorcycling
organizations establishing chapters across the United States. Outlaw clubs
such as the Sons of Silence Motorcycle Club began in the mid-West, the
Bandidos Motorcycle Club in Texas, the Pagans Motorcycle Club in Pennsylvania,
among others. Early during this period, certain members of the Pissed
Off Bastards of Bloomington split from their club and formed the first
charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC). Also during this period,
the Boozefighters, one of the original outlaw motorcycle clubs, began
a rapid decline in the numbers of members and eventually disbanded.*6
The American-Vietnam Conflict era (1958-1975) can be seen as the most
recent period during which significant and pervading social factors affected
group formation of outlaw motorcycle clubs. Just as after the Second World
War returning veterans seemed to flock to motorcycle clubs. Returning
American-Vietnam Conflict veterans interviewed during my field research
feel that all too often they became targets against whom many Americans
lashed out. Indeed, for many in this country and others (e.g., Australia)
the war and the atrocities being committed in the name of Americans and
against Americans in Southeast Asia was unconscionable (Pigot). Vietnam
veterans reported being labeled “baby killers”; some were
spat upon in airports, beaten at demonstrations, and refused gainful employment,
all of which after “doing their duty” for their country (Vietnam
Vets Motorcycle Club; Barger, et al; Pigot).

Among
other experiences, returning veterans brought back from the jungles of
Southeast Asia journeymen’s knowledge of and experience with illegal
drugs, which, given a relatively widespread American drug culture of the
1960s, went largely unnoticed or unrecognized by the mainstream citizenry.
Whereas WWII servicemen were on average 26 years old, the average age
of Vietnam servicemen was only 19 (Crawford). Teenagers barely out of
puberty were now experiencing one of the bloodiest armed conflicts in
American history. As with combat veterans of World War II, the hell fires
of war once again raged and found young Americans on foreign soil fighting,
dying, killing, and being injured. As before, these men would be forever
changed by their combat experience, their innocence scorched from their
being, their pre-war personalities reduced to little more than charred
remains to be swept under the carpet, so to speak, by a nation eager to
put the experience quickly behind them (Pigot; Crawford; Barger, et al).

It
is during this era that the notorious “one percenters” emerged
on a national scale from the outlaw biker subculture. The dominant motorcycle
clubs of the time took the secession a step further and turned the AMA’s
declaration back on itself, claiming the remaining 1% as a badge of honor
and forming themselves into a loose association of truly outlaw
motorcycle clubs known as One Percenters (Barger, et al; Pigot). The original
one percenters agreed on a diamond-shaped symbol to denote their marginal-but-exclusive
social status, and agreed to establish geographic boundaries—primarily
in California—in which each motorcycle club would operate independently.
Although this loose association had been around for some time before the
American-Vietnam Conflict, the one percenters were not to make the national
media scene until the mid-1960s (Posnansky, Reynolds, Seate, Thompson).

A
significant point in the evolution of one percenters was evident in California
during the summer of 1964. At this time two members of the Oakland Hells
Angels Motorcycle Club attending a club rally were arrested and charged
with raping two women in Monterey, California. The charges were dropped
due to lack of evidence and the two Hells Angels were released, but it
seems that the media coverage of the incident caught the attention of
certain California state government officials. California State Senator
Fred Farr demanded an immediate investigation into “outlaw motorcycle
clubs” and two weeks later California State Attorney General Thomas
C. Lynch launched a statewide law enforcement information gathering initiative
(Syder). The year following the Monterey incident, Attorney General Lynch
released to the public the internal report, which was prepared ostensibly
for the purpose of outlining activities of California motorcycle clubs
such as the Hells Angels. The Lynch Report, as it has come to be known,
can be seen as the first large-scale bureaucratic attempt to portray motorcycle
clubs as a clear and present danger to local, state and ultimately international
constituencies. The report consists of what can be interpreted as little
more than law enforcement urban legends: unsubstantiated absurdities such
as gang raping of innocent young women and the plundering of small California
townships, all of which fall under the heading “Hoodlum Activities.”
Investigators such as Hunter Thompson debunked the Lynch report as early
as 1966. Thompson perhaps describes best the credibility of the Lynch
report when he writes, “As a historical document, it read like a
plot synopsis of Mickey Spillane's worst dreams” (524). The questionable
social validity of the Lynch Report notwithstanding, “facts”
from the report continue to find their way into government and law enforcement
literature to this day (e.g., Southeast Gang Activity Center, 2005).

News
media were quick to pick up on the negative portrayal of the Hells Angels,
and many notable periodicals began running stories with alarmingly biased
titles. Perhaps Andrew Syder outlines best how the Lynch Report framed
the dominant American culture’s conceptualization of motorcycle
clubs. Syder traces citations of the report in mainstream American news
media, noting that most media took the “condemnatory Lynch Report
at face value, using it as their primary source of information”
(3). Most notable among publications citing the report are:

The
New York Times: “California Takes Steps to Curb Terrorism
of Ruffian Cyclists,” 16 March 1965,

The Los Angeles Times: “Hell's Angels Called Threat on
Wheels,” 16 March 1965,

Time: “The Wilder Ones,” 26 March 1965,

Newsweek: “The Wild Ones,” 29 March 1965,

The Nation: “Motorcycle Gangs: Losers and Outsiders,”
17 May 1965,

The New York Times: “10,000 in Beach Riot in New Hampshire,”
20 June 1965,

Life: “Come to the Riot,” 2 July 1965,

Newsweek: “Bikies' Fun,” 5 July 1965,

The Saturday Evening Post: “The Hell's Angels,”
20 November 1965.

This
media coverage had the effect of casting a pall that encompassed not only
the charters of the Hells Angels MC, but the outlaw motorcycle club subculture
as a whole. Hollywood moviemakers were quick to cash in on the disturbing
image of outlaw motorcycle clubs. Wild Angels and Hells Angels
on Wheels were released as early as 1967, each of which distort further
the reality of what it meant to be a member of an outlaw motorcycle club.*7
It appears that certain members of the California state government were
responsible for casting an unrealistic image of the outlaw motorcycle
club subculture, that certain prominent news media were responsible for
“validating” that distorted image, and that Hollywood has
perpetuated that image over time (Syder, Seate).

It
is not intended that the Hells Angels MC was (or is) an innocent victim
of negative government and news media coverage. To be sure, the Hells
Angels have played their role well in the crafting of their image. For
example, members of the Hells Angels MC seemed to enjoy media attention
by allowing Hunter Thompson to associate with them, by gladly participating
in the making of certain biker gang exploitation films (e.g., Hells
Angels on Wheels and Hell’s Angels ’69), by
calling in to local California radio broadcast talk shows. Further, the
Oakland charter of the Hells Angels MC fanned the flames of media attention
through antics such as attacking a group of anti-Vietnam War protestors
in Berkeley. Perhaps all this was simply an attempt on the part of the
Hells Angels MC to capitalize on hyperbole and solidify something of a
renegade image in the eyes of the dominant culture. However, an incident
in late 1969 served to solidify the outrageous image of the outlaw motorcycle
club subculture–no matter how valid or invalid it may have been–in
the eyes of American citizens. An HAMC member was charged with the murder
of an 18-year-old named Meredith Hunter, who was stabbed to death at the
free December 6, 1969 Rolling Stones “Gimme Shelter” concert
at Altamont Speedway in Livermore, California.

Details
of the incident remain unclear: (1) the Hells Angels MC may or may not
have been employed as security for the Rolling Stones; (2) the deceased,
Meredith Hunter, may or may not have attacked a member of the Hells Angels
MC; and (3) Hunter may or may not have intended to attack Mick Jagger
rather than a Hells Angel in order to instigate the melee. According to
Sonny Barger, Hells Angels MC Oakland charter president at the time, Hunter
shot one HAMC member: “Meredith had shot a Hell’s Angel. Since
the guy he shot was a fugitive at the time, we couldn’t take him
to a doctor or an emergency ward. It was just a flesh wound anyway"
(166). Of course, Barger’s account must be considered in the light
of absolute lack of corroborating information; indeed, even Barger admits
that he didn’t actually see the alleged shooting (165). The Hells
Angel who was supposedly shot remains nameless due to his “fugitive”
status, which also conveniently explains why no medical records are available
to verify Barger’s claim. One may look to the amount of contextual
detail surrounding the Altamont stabbing as evidence for credibility,
which Barger seems to provide, but nonetheless his account must be examined
critically.

It
is still possible today to view some of what happened at Altamont. In
a 1970 documentary titled Gimme Shelter (directed by David and
Albert Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin), viewers are able to see multiple
filmed replays of significant aspects of the Hunter stabbing. As Nick
Aretakis describes, “And then we see the murder itself: A member
of the Hells Angels stabs a man holding a gun in front of the stage. Or,
that is, we see it twice. It happens during the performance of ‘Under
My Thumb,’ but unless you’re closely looking, it’s hard
to spot. Not so in the editing room, where the filmmakers show it to us
and to Jagger, rolling it back and forth on their editing machine. Clearly
stunned by the images, Jagger walks out of the room toward the camera,
a blank look on his face, offering us no guidance, no verdict on what
happened, how, or why.” While the film does lack context surrounding
the stabbing (i.e. it fails to capture any causes or antecedents to the
shooting/stabbing), it is important to view the film footage in addition
to reading accounts of the incident in order to make plausible inferences.
What can be verified is that the HAMC member charged with the murder was
found not guilty. As with the Hells Angels MC members charged in Monterey
five years earlier, the Hells Angel charged with murder at Altamont went
free; however, the outlaw motorcycle club subculture was handed down a
life sentence of negative public opinion.

During
the 1960s and 1970s, newer clubs joined the one percent ranks. While smaller
in membership than older clubs such as the Hells Angels MC, they were
considerably more aggressive when it came to carving out geographic areas
in which to operate. Outlaw motorcycle clubs joining the elite ranks of
the one percenters during this time include the Bandidos MC from Galveston
Texas, the Pagans MC, the Sons of Silence MC, the Mongols MC, the Vagos
MC of southern California, and the Warriors MC in Florida. Accelerating
to contemporary times, a hierarchy of motorcycle clubs has been firmly
established among the one percenters: “the big three” as they
are known to state and federal law enforcement agencies (Southeast Gang
Activity Group; Barger, et al; Valentine). The big three in order of sociocultural
power are the Hells Angels MC, the Outlaws MC, and the Bandidos MC. There
dwell other one-percent motorcycle clubs in the subculture, including
among others the POBOBs MC, Gypsy Jokers MC, Galloping Gooses MC, and
Henchman MC.

Since
the beginning of the Transformative period in 1948 the number and types
of outlaw motorcycle clubs have swollen the ranks of the subculture; some
clubs meet the criteria to wear the one-percenter emblem but most do not
(Dulaney; Barger, et al; Wolf). With due respect to Mark Watson and Daniel
Wolf, who have reported that all outlaw clubs are one percenters, it is
important to draw a sharp distinction between outlaw motorcycle clubs
and one percenters. Outlaw motorcycle clubs are simply motorcycling organizations
that do not hold American Motorcyclist Association charters, and represent
the vast majority of motorcycle clubs in America (Dulaney). The reality
is that all one-percent clubs are outlaw motorcycle clubs, but not all
outlaw motorcycle clubs are one-percent clubs. The original meaning of
the term “outlaw,” which denotes a lack of an organizational
AMA charter and nothing more, still holds in motorcycle clubs that do
not define themselves as one percenters.

The
one-percenter ethos can be summarized as follows: the demands of the organization
are superior to the needs of the individual, which includes the individual’s
family and occupation. While it is no secret that certain members of one-percent
motorcycle clubs have been convicted of illegal acts such as methamphetamine
production, distribution and sales; prostitution; contract violence; racketeering;
and motorcycle theft (Paradis, Southeast Gang Activity Group, Barger,
Lavigne, Watson, Wolf, Posnansky, and Thompson), my field research suggests
strongly that those members who engage in such behavior represent the
vast minority of the one-percent clubs. Further, of the outlaw motorcycle
clubs observed, illegal behavior such as those listed above was non-existent.

The dominant symbol of the one percenter is the diamond, and a motorcycle
club that does not display this symbol on their colors is most definitely
not a one-percent organization. This diamond-shaped patch, with either
the text “one percenter” or the alpha-numeric symbol “1%er”
embroidered in the center, is usually displayed on the wearer’s
left vest lapel, over the heart; however, at least one club places the
one-percent symbol on the back-patch (e.g., the Bandidos MC). The one-percent
symbol utilizes the two dominant colors in the club’s color scheme
(e.g., the Hells Angels MC incorporates a white background with red letters
and border, the Outlaws MC places white lettering on a black background,
the Bandidos MC uses red lettering and borders on a gold background).
As an interesting aside, recently certain American charters of the Hells
Angels MC have ceased displaying the one percenter diamond signifier.
According to Sonny Barger, the Hells Angels MC standards for membership
are higher than those of any other motorcycle club, one percent or not.
Barger states, “we’re not One-Percenters—we’re
Hell’s Angels first and foremost” (42). During my field research
this was certainly the case of Oakland, California; Cave Creek, Arizona;
and Charlotte, North Carolina charters; however, the Hells Angels MC website
still proclaims “Hells Angels is the oldest, and biggest original
1 % motorcycle club in the world” (Hells Angels Motorcycle Club).

Through
the selling of particular Hells Angels MC organizational support merchandise,
it can be seen that these Hells Angels MC charters are taking steps to
deride the status of the diamond signifier. These support items include
T-shirts, hats, belt buckles, patches, and key chains that display the
diamond signifier, inside of which is displayed the script “81 %er”.
The number 81 represents the Hells Angels (e.g., the eighth letter of
the alphabet is “H” and the first letter is “A,”
thus 81 = HA). These support items are easily purchased via Hells Angels
MC websites and even the online auction house eBay.

During
my research compelling evidence emerged that suggests the existence of
non-one-percent outlaw clubs that do have factions of members who espouse
a one-percenter philosophy: individuals I will call “quasi-one percenters.”
Quasi-one percenters aside, the outlaw motorcycle club organizational
ethic, in and of itself, can be a harsh one to live by at times. This
ethic, colloquially referred to as “motorcycle club etiquette,”
outlines acceptable member behavior given a wide variety of social contexts
and dictates the deliverance of swift and severe sanctions to those who
violate group and individual roles and responsibilities. Generally speaking,
quasi-one percenters hold positions such as sergeants-at-arms, special
enforcers, or bodyguards. These members display a diamond-shaped patch
identical to those described above, usually on the front of their vest,
but inside the patch one usually finds the letters of the motorcycle club
rather than a “one percenter” or “1%er” signifier.
Sergeants-at-arms are elected positions within a motorcycle club whose
primary function is the maintenance of club discipline during official
functions, to act as the enforcement arm of the local leadership, and
to monitor the behavior of “problem children” (i.e. individuals,
both within and outside the club who are known troublemakers or who seem
to be displaying signs that point to possible, imminent trouble) during
club social events. Special enforcers are not elected positions within
a motorcycle club, but rather are appointed positions based on special
training, skills and abilities that certain members possess. Very often
special enforcers have U.S. Special Forces training and are proficient
with a number of weapons and hand-to-hand combat techniques. Bodyguards
are also appointed positions and those who hold such positions are similar
to special enforcers in their military training, but they serve as the
personal security detail for state and regional presidents of motorcycle
clubs.

Conclusion

The
taxonomy offered above is useful in understanding certain social and cultural
factors that influenced the origins and evolution of motorcycle clubs
in the United States. A common thread that runs through each of these
eras is that of American involvement in military conflicts and subsequent
social organizing around the sport of motorcycling. What seems clear is
that neither the American government nor society is attending to the effects
of war on such individuals. Indeed, it appears that no process exists
by which combat veterans are able to resume their roles as citizens, as
people. Because of this lack of structured re-assimilation into American
society certain combat veterans have created over time a culture in which
they are accepted as the people they have become. The outlaw motorcycle
club subculture can be seen as a society built along militaristic, hierarchical
lines, a highly ordered, controlled, and black-and-white world in which
individuals may understand implicitly their role, their identity, their
place in a society.

What I and other outlaw motorcycle club researchers have failed to examine
is the effect that the current American “War on Terror” may
have on the continued evolution of the subculture. Once again a handful
of Americans find themselves on foreign fields of battle, waging an increasingly
unpopular war for unclear reasons. Given the overwhelming influence armed
conflict has had on the formation and evolution of the outlaw motorcycle
club subculture, it seems appropriate to examine if and how the role of
women in combat units in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hostile zones fighting
the War on Terror changes the perception of women as full members in outlaw
and one-percent motorcycle clubs.

Perhaps
an additional period is unfolding in the outlaw motorcycle club subculture
even as one reads this article: a post-transformative period that begins
sometime in the 1980s and includes the effects of popular culture on the
biker subculture. Future research may reveal that certain members of the
subculture seem to have attained something of an iconic status. American
society may well regard members of the Hells Angels MC more as pulp fiction
characters than as credible menaces to society. Indeed, the context in
which many have come to know members of the subculture is that of cable
television, with the History Channel, Discovery Channel, and The Learning
Channel all cashing in on the appeal of outlaw biker documentaries, and
with members of the Hells Angels MC appearing on television shows such
as the Discovery Channel’s popular series Monster Garage.
While certainly not all members of one-percent motorcycle clubs are talented
mechanics and artisans, perhaps certain members of one-percent clubs are
using these new media as venues to broadcast a more positive image of
what it means to be an outlaw biker, or more specifically a one percenter.
The image portrayed in cable television shows like Monster Garage
is not that of a criminal element; indeed, the image is that of a
craftsman. Whereas media coverage of the 1960s can be interpreted as casting
an image of outlaw motorcycle clubs as destructive forces in society,
certain outlets of modern mass media seem willing to broadcast an image
that is very much that of creative individuals. And so the evolution of
the outlaw motorcycle club subculture continues to unfold.

Endnotes

*1
Works exploring the warring factions include Paradis, Lavigne, Valentine,
Mayson, and Wethern. On media portrayals see Barger, Zimmerman, &
Zimmerman, and Thompson. On myths see Reynolds and Yates. See Watson,
Wolf, and Posnansky on motorcycle club culture.
*2 The author is a lifelong motorcyclist who rides a 1953 Harley-Davidson
FLE (a.k.a. Panhead) and has been an active member of an outlaw motorcycle
club for the past eight years.
*3 See http://www.outlawsmc.com/history.
*4 Certain members of the Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington were later
to splinter off and form the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.
*5 See Valentine as an exemplar of such incomplete histories.
*6 The Boozefighters reformed in 1995 with the consent of Wino Willie
Forkner and other original members of the organization (Boozefighters).
*7 See Seate for a detailed analysis of these and other biker-related
films.